Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 125 posts

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#41

Post by 001sky »

paulgb wrote: post #24

> The paperback edition of Brad Stone’s “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon” — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as “unavailable.” I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? If they wanted to impede its distribution why are they still selling the Kindle, Hardcover, and Audio versions?

"For several months, Amazon has been quietly discouraging the sales of Hachette’s physical books by several techniques — cutting the customer’s discount so the book approaches list price; taking weeks to ship the book; suggesting prospective customers buy other books instead; and increasing the discount for the Kindle version."

There is no physical shortage.

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#42

Post by lauradhamilton »

tsunamifury wrote: post #15
smackfu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably e-book pricing. Hachette doesn't really have any reason to come out publicly and says they are trying to keep e-book prices high, since while that is good for authors and Hachette, it's bad for the consumer pocketbook.

Can we stop with the mindless idea that the point of capitalism is only to drive down the price for consumers. The point is to provide an equilibrium between suppliers and customers. The difference between 12.99 and 9.99 doesn't hurt consumers and provides significant difference in paying authors. Amazon is unfairly trying to kill the suppliers for short term gains at the expense of the industry.

I don't agree with this. I think that a 30% price difference is significant.

In the current market, I think that publishers get far too large a fraction of the revenue and authors far too small. If the author creates the content and promotes the content (with the help of Amazon) what value is the publisher adding? Copyediting? Legitimacy stamp?

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#43

Post by DerpDerpDerp »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #21
jerf wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Amazon can significantly hurt a publisher in this manner, it is suggestive that they may have a monopoly power that they are abusing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law (General note: Please at least somewhat carefully read over that before arguing. First, I'm only saying that it's suggestive, not proof, and secondly, there's a lot of misconceptions about what exactly is forbidden w.r.t. monopolies.)

The thing is, they don't. Amazon is like Walmart or Google. The reason everyone uses them isn't that there are no other options. There are. The reason is that they're better at it. A monopoly is, for example, Comcast, because there is no reasonable alternative provider for the same service. Talking about "hurt a publisher" is broadening the scope too far of what a monopoly is. A large retailer taking your products of…

There are markets with no real viable alternative to Walmart, because Walmart used their scale to crush competition, and no has made it uneconomical to start a rival business, since they'll temporarily lower prices below sustainable (using their scale), then raise them again when the other store dies.

If Walmart has enough local monopolies, this is a self-reinforcing strategy, since it's unlikely all of the monopolies will be challenged at once, and Walmart can thus have a few of them with unusually low prices while the rest sustain that one during the conflict (since they're guaranteed to have business, being the only store in town).

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#44

Post by smackfu »

mpweiher wrote: post #32

Boy, aren't we all glad the DOJ protected poor little Amazon from the evil and all-powerful Apple e-book conspiracy and monopoly.

OK, so in this case, Amazon wants better terms than Hachette will give, so Amazon plays hardball.

In the e-book conspiracy, all the publishers wanted better terms than Amazon would give, and they didn't want to give Amazon the chance to play hardball, so they banded together and forced Amazon's hand.

Not really sure how the second is better. It's certainly way more illegal.

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#45

Post by HNaTTY »

dragonwriter wrote: post #6
btrombley wrote: post #2

The article is short on details, but I'm not clear why Amazon is obligated to sell a publisher's books, much less at the publisher's desired prices. Wal-mart is famous for using its size to lean on suppliers ensuring "everyday low prices." Why is publishing different? I sympathize with authors that are hurt by this battle, but it just shows that Amazon's marketplace is becoming more important to their sales than thei…

> but I'm not clear why Amazon is obligated to sell a publisher's books, much less at the publisher's desired prices. No one has said that they are. Likewise, the affected publisher, and the news media, are not obligated to fail to inform the public of Amazon's tactics so that they are aware that Amazon having smaller-than-usual discounts, "not available" notices, and long shipping times may well be a sign not of any…

I like your writing style.

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

paulgb wrote: post #24

> The paperback edition of Brad Stone’s “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon” — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as “unavailable.” I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? If they wanted to impede its distribution why are they still selling the Kindle, Hardcover, and Audio versions?

> I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable?

Its unavailable in the sense that Amazon doesn't make it available -- so it is, literally, unavailable from Amazon. Strictly speaking, this is not inaccurate, it just doesn't mean what people who trust Amazon's comprehensiveness are likely to think it means, as its not unavailable from the publisher, which is why its also not unavailable through other retailers.

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#47

Post by smackfu »

cube13 wrote: post #39
paulgb wrote: post #24

> The paperback edition of Brad Stone’s “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon” — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as “unavailable.” I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? If they wanted to impede its distribution why are they still selling the Kindle, Hardcover, and Audio versions?

That's true. However, making a JK Rowling book completely unavailable? That's incredibly suspicious. It's pretty much a guaranteed bestseller.

That book is still a preorder, so a lot easier for Amazon to play games with. If they aren't selling it on release date, that's a much bigger deal.

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#48

Post by rhizome »

dragonwriter wrote: post #46
paulgb wrote: post #24

> The paperback edition of Brad Stone’s “The Everything Store: Jeff Bezos and the Age of Amazon” — a book Amazon disliked so much it denounced it — is suddenly listed as “unavailable.” I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? If they wanted to impede its distribution why are they still selling the Kindle, Hardcover, and Audio versions?

> I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? Its unavailable in the sense that Amazon doesn't make it available -- so it is, literally, unavailable from Amazon . Strictly speaking, this is not inaccurate, it just doesn't mean what people who trust Amazon's comprehensiveness are likely to think it means, as its not unavailable from the publisher, which is why its a…

There is at least a century and a half of precedent for using the term "Out of Stock."

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#49

Post by dragonwriter »

smackfu wrote: post #44
mpweiher wrote: post #32

Boy, aren't we all glad the DOJ protected poor little Amazon from the evil and all-powerful Apple e-book conspiracy and monopoly.

OK, so in this case, Amazon wants better terms than Hachette will give, so Amazon plays hardball. In the e-book conspiracy, all the publishers wanted better terms than Amazon would give, and they didn't want to give Amazon the chance to play hardball, so they banded together and forced Amazon's hand. Not really sure how the second is better. It's certainly way more illegal.

Assuming the first player has monopoly power (which its tactics wouldn't have any effect if it didn't) both are equally illegal.

Re: Amazon Flexes Its Muscles in Fight Against Publishers

#50

Post by dragonwriter »

rhizome wrote: post #48
dragonwriter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next guy but couldn't the book just be... unavailable? Its unavailable in the sense that Amazon doesn't make it available -- so it is, literally, unavailable from Amazon . Strictly speaking, this is not inaccurate, it just doesn't mean what people who trust Amazon's comprehensiveness are likely to think it means, as its not unavailable from the publisher, which is why its a…

There is at least a century and a half of precedent for using the term "Out of Stock."

I think I was pretty clear that the tactics at issue in the article are misleading, even when they might not be strictly inaccurate.
Post reply on HN